Anybody playing $5-10 full lately?

[ChicagoTroy]

I took a couple months off poker and came back and Party's different. I'm wondering if anybody has taken to playing $5-10 full* lately, or if that game is still a little too bad and has too high a rake.

*Yes, I know $5-10 6-Max is a much better game.

[flair1239]

There have been a lot of threads on this lately to summarise:

1. People who actually play 5/10 full, will say that it can be tight at times, but with proper games selection, the games are actually quite good. I am in this camp.

2. People who have not played a signficant amount of hands at 5/10 full, will say that it is a rock garden and a waste of time and will then proceed to post Hand Histories showing donk type plays from 5/10 6-max to show how good that game is.

[JackyChilds]

I`ve noticed this as well. I`ve only played about 1,000 hands at 5/10 6 max as opposed to 5,000+ at full ring, so my sample size is pretty small. My question for those folks who prefer 6 max is, "are you really beating the game at a higher rate to overcome the blinds posted per hour with a smaller orbit?".

[RacersEdge]

I would be leaning toward #1 as well, but I have only played about 1500 hands at 5/10 full.

What's the theory on why 6 max would be juicier?

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the theory on why 6 max would be juicier?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more exciting. You can play more hands. Fluctuations are larger so fish can have much larger runs.

[JackyChilds]

[/ QUOTE ]It's more exciting. You can play more hands. Fluctuations are larger so fish can have much larger runs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I`m all for excitment, but I still don`t see how 6 max could be more profitable in the long run than full ring unless it is just chock full of knuckleheads.

(fwiw, I just noticed the original poster mentioned Party, I usually play Poker Stars, if that makes any difference.)

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
My question for those folks who prefer 6 max is, "are you really beating the game at a higher rate to overcome the blinds posted per hour with a smaller orbit?".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play 5/10 6 Max, and I don't understand this question. Everyone has to post blinds at the faster rate, so you can't "overcome" them in the sense that you "overcome" rake. Right?

[ChicagoTroy]

The question I was getting at is if the $5-10 full is beatable, it is almost certainly at a lower rate than 6-max. 2.75-3 BB/100 on a consistent basis is probably impossible on full, but not on 6-max. So is it possible to beat the full game at a rate that exceeds the rake to a reasonable degree? Several months ago, the consensus was that $3-6 - $5-10 6-max was the logical progression, because $5-10 full sucked too hard.

[JackyChilds]

[ QUOTE ]
My question for those folks who prefer 6 max is, "are you really beating the game at a higher rate to overcome the blinds posted per hour with a smaller orbit?".

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't play 5/10 6 Max, and I don't understand this question. Everyone has to post blinds at the faster rate, so you can't "overcome" them in the sense that you "overcome" rake. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. My point wasn`t relative to other players at the table. I was referring to the fact that it simply costs more to play 6 max for any period of time compared to full ring because the orbit is smaller.

[kevyk]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question for those folks who prefer 6 max is, "are you really beating the game at a higher rate to overcome the blinds posted per hour with a smaller orbit?".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't play 5/10 6 Max, and I don't understand this question. Everyone has to post blinds at the faster rate, so you can't "overcome" them in the sense that you "overcome" rake. Right?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are correct. My point wasn`t relative to other players at the table. I was referring to the fact that it simply costs more to play 6 max for any period of time compared to full ring because the orbit is smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that paying the blinds more frequently is zero-sum and therefore does not amount to a tax on your winnings. You don't just "pay" the blinds; you have equity in pots you play from the blinds. Blind-stealing and defense will play a greater role in a shorthanded game, and you should play somewhat looser, but that's about it. IIRC, Ed Miller wrote an interesting article about this phenomenon in the April 2+2 Magazine.